Madras High Court
S.Baskaran @ Baskar vs M/S.Mata Steels on 10 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.357 of 2018
S.Baskaran @ Baskar
Proprietor,
Ragavi Engineering Service,
No.125-A, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai-600 098. ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Mata Steels,
Prop: Pushpa Agarwal,
Represented by its Power of Attorney,
Mr.Nikil Agarwal,
DP 112/4 (SP), 2nd Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Chennai – 600 058. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow the above Criminal Revision
Petition and set-aside the conviction, sentence and compensation imposed in
S.T.C.No.462 of 2014 dated 10.01.2017 by the learned Fast Track Judicial
Magistrate, Ambattur and partly allowed and modified Judgment pronounced
by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in C.A.No.20 of
2017 dated 30.08.2017 and acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Janarthanan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muthukumar
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set-aside the conviction,
sentence and compensation imposed in S.T.C.No.462 of 2014 dated 10.01.2017
by the learned Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and partly allowed and
modified the Judgment pronounced by the learned Principal District Sessions
Judge, Tiruvallur, in C.A.No.20 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
pending the revision, the parties have entered into a compromise and the
petitioner had settled the entire amount as per the settlement. They also entered
into memorandum of joint compromise and produced before this Court.
3. The Joint memo of Compromise dated 10.10.2022, is extracted
hereunder,
“ It is respectfully submits that the petitioner has filed this
above Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court and this trail case
was filed U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Both the petitioner
and the respondent came to compromise and settled the matter as
out of court settlement. Further during the time of suspension of
sentence as per the order of this Hon'ble Court the petitioner has
deposited a sum of Rs.3,27,500/- before the Honb'le Fast Track
Magistrate at Ambattur. Therefore this Hon'ble Court may permit the
respondent to withdraw the said sum of Rs.3,27,500/- from the said
trail court.”
4. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramgopal and others vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 (6) CTC 240 and the relevant paragraphs
are extracted hereunder:-
18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that the plenary
jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under
Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by
ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in
the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C.
conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set
aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under
Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with
scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to
secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given
to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal
justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of
maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of
placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section
320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such
powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i)
Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of
compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv)
Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and
weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two
appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers
under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and
consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We
say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved
in these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or
having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature;
Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the
Appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their
mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious
nature that quashing of which would override public interest;
Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is
immaterial that the trial against the Appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand
dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have
buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their
dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took
place way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There
is nothing on record to evince that either before or after the
purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired
between the parties;
Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are
residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity,
the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace,
harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided
to forget and forgive any illwill and have no vengeance against
each other; and Seventhly, the cause of administration of
criminal justice system would remain uneffected on acceptance
of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant
acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their present
age.
5. In view of the above, the order of the conviction, sentence and
compensation imposed in S.T.C.No.462 of 2014 dated 10.01.2017 by the
learned Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and the modified Judgment
passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in
C.A.No.20 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017, are hereby set aside and the terms of
Joint Memo of Compromise, dated 10.10.2022, shall form part and parcel of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
this Order.
6. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which was
deposited to the credit of Trial Court by filing an appropriate application before
the Court below.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.
10.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mn
To
1.The Principal District Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.
2.The Fast Track Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
Crl.RC.No.357 of 2018
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
